Download Henry Clay and John C. Calhoun

US History: Henry Clay and John C. Calhoun
1. From colonial times through the mid-nineteenth century,
people believed that a person's character and personality
could be conveyed through his or her portrait. This portrait of
Henry Clay was commissioned by political supporters who
hoped that Clay would be the Whig Party presidential
candidate in 1844. Considering the political climate of the
times, especially the increasing conflicts between North and
South, what character traits might Henry Clay have hoped that
his portrait would communicate to voters? Explain your
answers. If you were running for President of the United States
today, what aspects of your personality would you want an
artist to capture in a portrait of you?
At the time of his nomination as the Whig Party candidate for the 1844 presidential election, Clay
had recently resigned from the Senate after serving as Kentucky's senator for eleven years, where
he led an uphill fight against the policies of the Jacksonians. Clay was an ardent nationalist and had
worked diligently to preserve the Union throughout his thirty-year career in the House and the
Senate. He was known as "The Great Pacificator" because of his contributions to three important
compromise plans to balance the rights of free and slave states. Clay would most likely have hoped
that his "presidential" portrait would have communicated to voters his fairness, his devotion to the
Union, and his ability to mediate between opposing sides of an issue. In addition, Clay would
probably have wanted his portrait to express that he had been a wise and committed public servant
and a strong advocate of national improvements beneficial to all parts of the country.
Missouri Compromise, 1820: This agreement, worked out in the House and Senate, allowed Maine
to be admitted to the Union as a free state, allowed Missouri to be admitted without restrictions on
slavery, and banned slavery in the rest of the Louisiana Purchase territories north of Missouri's
southern border. The arguments leading up to the Missouri Compromise brought to a head the
extreme differences between the North and South on the issue of slavery. The compromise
measures kept the conflict over the extension of slavery relatively quiet until the repeal of the
Missouri Compromise by the Kansas-Nebraska Act in 1854.
Compromise of 1833: In response to the Tariff Act of 1832, South Carolina passed an ordinance of
nullification, which declared that the federal tariff laws were null and void. The state also threatened
to resist by force any federal attempt to enforce the tariff. President Andrew Jackson led the charge
in introducing a bill that gave the President authority to use armed forces to execute the laws. Henry
Clay helped prepare a compromise to the Tariff Act that would be more acceptable to the South. The
compromise tariff was approved in 1833 and prevented South Carolina from, in essence, seceding
from the Union by rising up against the federal government.
Compromise of 1850: This crisis arose from the request of the territory of
California to be admitted to the Union as a free state. Clay brokered a
compromise that allowed California to be admitted as a free state, while the
territories of New Mexico and Utah were organized with the slave question left
open. In addition, the slave trade was prohibited in the District of Columbia, and
more rigorous application of fugitive slave laws was promoted.
John C. Calhoun was an early supporter of the War of 1812 against Britain and,
while serving in the House of Representatives, promoted such projects as a
national bank, a permanent road system, and a standing army. He was described by Secretary of
State John Quincy Adams as "above all sectional and factious prejudices." In the early 1830s,
however, after serving as Vice President under John Quincy Adams and Andrew Jackson, Calhoun
became a proponent of states' rights, believing that each state was sovereign and that any one state
could declare an act of Congress unconstitutional (the theory of nullification). Calhoun, in protest
against the 1832 Tariff Act, led South Carolina in an attempt to nullify the act. Although this crisis
was eventually settled through the Compromise of 1833, Calhoun continued to be concerned with
protecting slavery, which he feared could some day be abolished by a northern majority in Congress.
Despite Calhoun's passionate commitment to slavery, most southern states disagreed with his
theory of nullification. Although he desperately tried to unify the South in its opposition to the North's
challenge to slavery, Calhoun did not promote secession and, in fact, continued to be devoted to
preserving the Union.
2. Shortly before his death, John C. Calhoun is reported to have said, "If I am judged by
my acts, I trust I shall be found as firm a friend of the Union as any man in it." How
can you reconcile this statement by Calhoun with his belief in states' rights and his
support of slavery? If Calhoun had been alive at the start of the Civil War, do you think
he would have sided with the Union or the South? Explain your response.
Calhoun was clearly devoted to both the Union and the South and attempted to preserve the Union
by agreeing to the demands of the South. Before his death, Calhoun predicted that the dissolution of
the Union would occur around 1862. One could argue that such a loyal southerner, who staunchly
defended both slavery and the sovereignty of states, would have sided with the South in the Civil
War. However, it could also be theorized that Calhoun's early commitment to nationalism, and his
belief that the South might not be victorious in conflict against the North, would have caused him to
support the preservation of the Union.
3. It has been theorized that Calhoun's political actions in the 1830s and 1840s
contributed greatly to the beginning of the Civil War and that Clay's political actions
during the same time period may have delayed the Civil War by ten years. Do you
agree with these statements? Can the contributions of one person have such a
forceful impact on the course of national events? Select one of these positions and
write a defense or rebuttal of it.
John Calhoun spent much of his tenure in the Senate protecting the institution of slavery and
working to unite the South against abolitionist attacks. His belief in nullification may have sidetracked
the South from unifying against a common enemy, however, and his ardent defense of slavery
certainly stirred up strong anti-southern feelings in the free states. While it is possible that Calhoun's
provocative role throughout the many years of sectional conflict may have prevented nonviolent
compromise between the North and South, it is likely that Calhoun would argue that the measures
he supported actually prevented armed conflict from happening sooner.
Henry Clay's gift for negotiating compromises between the North and South helped maintain a
balance between slave states and free states and may very well have averted the start of the Civil
War by several years. Clay's dedication to nationalism through many public policies may also have
helped keep the Union intact. However, it should be considered that by working to please both the
North and the South, Clay might have missed an opportunity to become a formidable leader of the
North. Had he unified the North in opposition to slavery, weakened the South with restrictions, and
prevented the admission of more slave states, it is possible that the perceived strength of the Union
might have made war unthinkable to the South.